cite the statute.
Who is willing to go on record saying they believe the President can defy legal court orders?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
If Trump defies court orders it's because lawyers have advised him they are not legal orders.
So you can take your question and put it where the sun doesn't shine.
So you can take your question and put it where the sun doesn't shine.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8
Not a criminal law.
They do not apply.
§551. Definitions. (14) "ex parte communication" means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but it ***shall not*** include requests for status reports on any matter or proceeding covered by this subchapter. (Asterisks are mine).
cite the statute that says a President must comply with a Judges order when it comes to Nat Security
How does that make the law not apply? and you are ignoring 8 USC 1101 as well as the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Now will you answer my question, or keep running to protect your delusion.
He requested status reports…names, times they departed…where they were when he ordered them (illegally) to return.
You replied to yourself, dummy.
That does not invalidate application of the law, and you ignored 8 USC 1101 as well as the 5th and 14th Amendments.
No, I didn’t…post 105.
They do not apply.
§551. Definitions. (14) "ex parte communication" means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but it ***shall not*** include requests for status reports on any matter or proceeding covered by this subchapter. (Asterisks are mine).
A definition of an ex parte communication in one statute does not cause any statutes to be inapplicable. You are being silly.
This doofus judge violated the very law that you wrongly posted.
Get a clue.
The district courts of this country do not have the authority to direct the functions of the Executive Branch…period.
Are you illiterate, you believe that a definition of "ex=parte" communication invalidates statutes and parts of the Constitution?
More delusion.
Even if the Executive Branch is violating the law/Constitution?
So a president is an absolute King?
Well...this IS the first time a total moron president has done it...so that's new.
Right?
This doofus judge has produced zero proof that the Executive Branch is violating the law or the Constitution.
Lose the stupid “absolute king.”
It makes you appear stupid.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^
Dodged the initial question.
Once again you are proving yourself to be an oath-breaker, ex-Captain Earl.